• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Yep and that’s fair, but it’s still really critical that those of us that can migrate do so. It’s a chicken and egg problem. Developers won’t feel pressured to support Linux if there’s no sizable user base, but the user base won’t grow until developers provide support for Linux. He even mentions that in that video. There’s a reason I’m only this year planning on switching my primary desktop from Windows to Linux and it’s because of how good Proton has gotten. I’ve already checked every game in my Steam library and while it’s not 100% of the library that runs, everything that doesn’t is something I don’t care about.


  • We don’t need everyone to migrate, just enough that companies and developers feel obligated to support Linux. We’re slowly getting there. Valve throwing their weight behind Linux for gaming was a massive win for Linux. Another important factor is the rise of the mobile first generations and the fact that at its core Android is Linux based. It’s not completely trivial to port an Android app to Linux but it’s at least no worse than porting it to Windows.

    Microsoft may still have a stranglehold on corporate desktops, but they’ve long since lost the battle for servers and their hold on the home desktop is slipping a little more each day. Losing a significant chunk of gamers to Linux would be a massive blow to MS because it has been one of the few really unassailable markets for them historically.



  • You completely missed the point. 400% is meaningless without more context. If I increase my odds of winning the lottery by 400%, I’d still be a moron for wasting my money in the lottery. Percentages are constantly abused in marketing and news articles to imply things that don’t really apply.

    So yes, the article doesn’t actually specify how much your risk increases due to being exposed to those chemicals, just saying 400% is about as informative as saying 6 or 10,000. It implies a significant risk, but doesn’t support it. Without knowing how much risk there actually is it’s impossible to evaluate if the benefits outweigh the risks.


  • Well it says people with a high blood concentration of these chemicals have a 4x increase vs. those with a low concentration. That sounds bad but it might not be. If your odds of developing cancer in the low concentration group are 1 in a million, then your odds in the high concentration group are only 1 in 250,000 which isn’t exactly great but isn’t terrible either. On the other hand if your odds in the low group are 1 in 10,000, then in the high group it’s now 1 in 2,500 which is pretty bad.

    All that is also ignoring that the article never directly says cars are responsible, only that the chemicals are present in them, and that people with a high blood concentration of those chemicals have a higher risk. Time is also never discussed. Does it take 80 years of near constant exposure to reach “high blood concentrations”, or are we talking like 5 years? The article is just too nebulous and vague. It shows some correlations, but seems to fall short of both causal links and quantifying the actual risks.








  • Producing a really high end CPU just be muscle flexing. Anybody can do that. Having apps run on it is a whole another story.

    You say that, but nobody has actually done so. HiFive has produced some CPUs that would qualify as extremely low end desktop CPUs, but nothing that can compete with even middle of the road processors like an i5 or a Ryzen 5. As for apps, it would be pretty trivial to get a huge swath of Linux apps running on it, and if there was enough of a base and demand you’d see companies producing RISC-V binaries as well (much like they’re starting to for ARM). For emulation layers I’m sure something could be done, QEMU if nothing else could probably be used.


  • Yes, technically speaking ARM is RISC, just a different flavor of it from RISC-V. They’re effectively siblings. x86 on the other hand (and AMD64) are CISC processors. CISC provides compact programs at the cost of a more complicated (and therefore more power hungry) CPU. That said this is a gross oversimplification and no modern CPU is entirely RISC or CISC under the covers. Both ARM and x86 end up looking quite similar to each other when you dig into them, with x86 producing microcode from its instruction set that is effectively RISC, and ARM introducing some decidedly CISC looking instructions.

    The reality is the relative power hungry-ness of the architectures doesn’t really come down to RISC vs. CISC as much as it does x86 providing backwards compatibility to literally decades of bad decisions. If x86 could jettison backwards compatibility and ditch all but the latest and greatest of its instruction set it would be able to compete watt for watt with ARM easily, but that’s a tradeoff customers are unwilling to engage with as it would render large swaths of software incompatible.


  • Longer term it’s going to be interesting to see what if anything RISC-V changes. Right now they’re filling a role that ARM occupied about 20 years ago being primarily an alternative for cheap and medium power devices, but just like ARM they’ve got the potential to duke it out in the desktop space with the right backing. It would for instance be an interesting move if Microsoft partnered with a company like HiFive to produce a truly high end RISC-V CPU similar to Apples M1/M2.